Well I'd say that I sense in your qeustion the desire to know THE answer. Like what is their methodology for determining THE answer. But they do no such thing, nor have no methodology at all comprable to science. But that's the thing. It's about believing, not knowing.

Hey, Phaedrus.

I disagree. Science would be able to tell THAT the cataracts are gone, but they'd be unable to tell why. Because it wasn't caused by any natural, measurable force. A wizard did it. There's no unit of measurement for wizard power. Plus, the incident is unique, so there's no reproducing it.

Well I'd say that I sense in your qeustion the desire to know THE answer. Like what is their methodology for determining THE answer. But they do no such thing, nor have no methodology at all comprable to science. But that's the thing. It's about believing, not knowing.

(29-12-2012 06:46 PM)GodlessnFree Wrote: I am assuming that the people reading this are smart enough to know that the desert myths are false. I usually have an easy time debunking the anecdotes/ logical fallacies that theists use to prove the existence of a god/ their god.
However, yesterday I was having a conversation with my aunt who unfortunately happens to be a nun and I asked her for evidence for her god. She replied that she didn't need any evidence because it was not a "scientific claim" but rather a claim that is beyond the "realm of science". I asked her then what was her reason(s) to believe in her god, her reply was "faith". According to her, faith is simply "the way to know the reality beyond science". Then, she said that I was closed to faith because I had been absorbed by the deceit of "scientism". She also claimed that she couldn't explain me her reasons for believing in her god because since I believed in "scientism" my mind was "closed to anything beyond science". That seems patent bullshit.
This isn't the first time I find this ridiculous argument. Popular christians of different intellectual capabilities ranging from John Lennox to VenomfangX always try to "debunk" atheism by equating it with "Scientism". Francis Collins said that scientism was a sign of close-mindedness. Lennox illustrated his criticism of scientism with a metaphor: Aunt Matilda's Cake. The metaphor is often praised among faitheads, I suggest you watch it in case you haven't done so yet. In a nutshell, the metaphor of the cake explains that science can allow us to know the physical properties of the cake (density, weight, volume, material composition) but not the metaphysical properties of it (purpose, maker, proper use). Then the cake is compared to the universe and Lennox claims that the universe also has metaphysical properties that are beyond science and require another way of reasoning in order to be known.
Well, enough of my rambling, I wanted to hear opinions/objections towards this high-sounding but really fallacious argument of "The Limits of Science". The best I got yet is AronRa's brilliant response: "Science may not have all the answers, but some answers are better than no answers at all, and that's what religion gives you".
Cheers.

So your aunt must also have faith in Allah too, right...? I didn't think so... I wonder how she justifies choosing Catholicism over Islam or any other faith-based religion.

I believe there is an enormous magical purple whale floating out there in space some place. (No, not really.) I believe this purely out of faith and if your aunt doesn't have the same faith it's because her mind is too closed by scientism (as it is with Allah, et. al.)

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Well I'd say that I sense in your qeustion the desire to know THE answer. Like what is their methodology for determining THE answer. But they do no such thing, nor have no methodology at all comprable to science. But that's the thing. It's about believing, not knowing.

Hey, Phaedrus.

I disagree. Science would be able to tell THAT the cataracts are gone, but they'd be unable to tell why. Because it wasn't caused by any natural, measurable force. A wizard did it. There's no unit of measurement for wizard power. Plus, the incident is unique, so there's no reproducing it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

But that wizard must exert some force upon the cataracts to cause them to break up. Even if it's magic, something in the cataracts or their environment has to change for them to break up; the molecular bonds inside them are weakened maybe, or a magical force appears inside them pushing them apart, or something. Or if they were just "vanished" into nothingness then that should be easily detectable as a miraculous event, a violation of mass/energy conservation.

All this in a hypothetical, of course. God is too much of a dick to let his miracles be done in a scientifically controlled environment.

I sense from your queery that you're asking how it is that they determine THE Truth. I'm not suggesting that they do and I can't imagine what their methodology would be. Sometimes, the human relationship with the world is entirely rational, literal and scientific. And that's fine. I'm down. But sometimes there are metaphysical questions that require a different approach. It's not a matter of finding THE Truth, but a matter of finding faith an A truth. I think that that is an important part of the human experience. A poetic undertanding of the world is as important as a literal one in my opinion. So in the end, no religion has to discover the single hard and fast truth about the purpose of the cake. But what they allow that science does not, is the investigation of the question. I think that's important.

Hey, Phaedrus and Bio.

If God eliminated someone's cataracts, science would be able to determine THAT they were gone, but not HOW they were removed. Because a wizard did it. There's no unit of measurement for wizard power. Also, it's a unique phenomenon with no corresponding natural laws. So it can't be reproduced.

On the manipulating forces thing, I'll say this. Say removing cataracts requires 1.21 gigawats. God could just spontaneously generate that from nothing, which would baffle science because it should have been impossible. Or he could just snap his fingers and make it happen just like that without all the Great Scott and the flux capacitor and the huhglayvin! That too would baffle science.

Nice to see you admitting that the ultimate purpose of cake is not objective but is instead the result of socially constructed reality

I agree with what you said.

But science doesn't attempt to explain the purpose of the cake. Again, like I said to MDog, I'm not saying that they know definitively what it is, but that it provides an avenue for the exploration of the question that science does not. It also allows for a deep relationship with whatever is discovered/constructed in the absence of data and in the presence of adversity.

I will agree with you though that the cake metaphor sure as fuck doesn't lead inexorably to "therefore there is a God."